EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

transfer. ii. The limit of 5% has been increased to 10% by the Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 1.4.2021. iii. A question arises as to whether the tolerance limit is prospective from the date of its introduction or is retrospective? If it is retrospective, it is retrospective since when? iv. Amendment made in scheme of section 50C(1), by inserting third

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the TPO concluded that no adjustment was required to the international transactions. The assessee submitted before the AO that the order of the Tribunal dated 23.10.2017 in the case of GIPL holding that payments to GIL towards Adwords program to be royalty was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and remanded

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the TPO concluded that no adjustment was required to the international transactions. The assessee submitted before the AO that the order of the Tribunal dated 23.10.2017 in the case of GIPL holding that payments to GIL towards Adwords program to be royalty was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and remanded

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 270A of the Income Tax Act. As this matter is premature at this stage, it is dismissed accordingly as infructuous. 5. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in Grounds Nos. 4 to 13 of its appeal pertains to the action of the learned DRP/TPO/AO in benchmarking the payment of royalty at NIL. 6. The facts in brief

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing Officer TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur-Canesugar Works

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing Officer TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur-Canesugar Works

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing Officer TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur-Canesugar Works

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing Officer TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur-Canesugar Works

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing Officer TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur-Canesugar Works

GOOGLE IRELAND LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(It)A No. 2845/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable to tax in India in the hands of GIL. The case of the assessee is that the said payments are in the nature of business profits, which are chargeable to tax in Ireland

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

9) and\ntherefore the return filed on 26-02-2021 was valid.\n5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the Notice Issued u/s 153C on\nthe basis of a satisfaction note alleged to have been drawn on 24-03-\n2020 on the basis of assessment proceedings in the case of searched\nassessee M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd without appreciating

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

9 of 86\nIT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022\n6.2 The Ld.Sr.Counsel referred to section 3 of TOLA 2020 and submitted that, since passing the draft assessment order u/s. 153(1) r.w.s. 153(4) of the act was due on 31.12.2020 that fell between the COVID period (20.03.2020 to 31.12.2020), TOLA 2020 relaxed the time limit u/s. 153(1) r.w.s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed and the cross objections being C

priced to MSI\non par with MSSPL's Training offered to other Channel\nPartners.\n(d) Assist in ARC Product and Associated Services sales.\nbusiness, technical and commercial discussions, product\ndemonstrations and services portfolio presentations to the\nprospect.\n(e) Deploy, maintain, customize and support the product\nand services with clients\n(f) Carry Commercial and contractual ownership

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the TPO concluded\nthat no adjustment was required to the international transactions. The\nassessee submitted before the AO that the order of the Tribunal dated\n23.10.2017 in the case of GIPL holding that payments to GIL towards\nAdwords program to be royalty was set aside by the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Karnataka and remanded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter VI-A or section 10AA, to which provisions of sub- section (8) or sub-section (10) of section 80-IA are applicable;” Hence, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of sec.80IA(8), which read as under:- “80IA(8) Where any goods or services held for the purposes

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

transferred to a new business in that area or in any other backward area and the total value of the machinery or plant or part so transferred does not exceed twenty per cent of the total value of the machinery or Page 31 of 39 plant used in the business, then, for the purposes of clause (iii) of this